Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Wealth Redistribution

Being afraid of turning into a liberal commie bastard, I make sure to watch a lot of Fox News and listen to a lot of conservative talk radio.  Of course, I do this with an intensely critical mind.  So one phrase I hear a lot is this boogie man called "wealth redistribution" - that Obama is going to steal money from one group and give it to another.  But I'm not entirely sure what they mean by it.  As far as I see, it can mean either:

1) The phrase rings of propaganda that I'm more than a little used to hearing in the regimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.  In at least design "wealth redistribution" is supposed to take from a needlessly wealthy minority and give to a poor minority.  It didn't work.  Of course, in those regimes, wealth was indeed redistributed:  one group murdered and stole from the original wealthy class and the peasants and took it themselves.  The rich died, the poor starved, and the Party got incredibly rich.  So what the conservative pundits are talking about here is Obama taking over in an dictatorial regime that will essentially steal everything for himself.

2) Or perhaps its supposed to simply mean that Obama's policies are designed to indirectly sap wealth from one group so as to give it to another poorer group through government aid and benefits.  The health care bill, in a horribly over-simplifying way, does this.  If you're a libertarian and hate the idea of the government getting to decide just what you're allowed to own, either directly or indirectly, then you're definitely going to hate this one.  There's definitely a long Constitutional argument here for why the government shouldn't be involved in this sort of thing.

So I think that the pundits are referring to option two.  If its option one, then they're completely insane.  Obama may indeed be a ruthless bastard out to get as much power as he's able, but he'll never succeed in any Stalinist schemes (if he ever starts I'll be sure to tell you guys once I'm safely far away in New Zealand).  Option two actually represents a realistic policy our government might take, so it actually merits a discussion.

I don't understand why wealth redistribution is such a terrible thing.  Let's just look at what percentage of the US economy the wealthiest 10% currently owns.  As of 2008, studies say that its just about 24.3%.  The top 10% owns around 70% to 80% of all the wealth in the nation.  So ultimately you realize that the top 1% actually collectively has more wealth than the bottom 90%.  Add this to the fact that 1/5th of Americans have no assets at all, either they simply living paycheck to paycheck or are horribly in debt.  I don't think this is all a recipe for a healthy economy.

Maybe its all a good thing:  I guess when people have tons of capital, it does mean they have a good ability to start up their own entrepreneurial enterprises or easily support them.  Also our society still remains quite open, even if it is stratified.  Yeah, if you're born poor you're likely to stay poor.  But most Americans at least start out with enough of a chance to join the "big boys club" of the super rich, and it is indeed an incentive to work hard and create wealth to boost the economy.  Or perhaps there's no sociological explanation at all:  these people are just the best of the best at what they do and so have created all this wealth from scratch, and so should enjoy the bountiful crop they've planted (I'd like to believe this).

But when you get right down to it, right now people are losing their homes.  People are falling apart and boiling in debt.  Millions are unemployed and so called "fiscally responsible" politicians are refusing to give them benefits.  When a small group has so much while so many have nothing, it seems only natural to me.

Am I crazy?  I don't know.

5 comments:

  1. Hm... I think you just wrote an episode of South Park. But in all seriousness, I really do fear for the economy. Not because of the growing debt, but because of people being so selfish about the whole damn thing. I can understand caring about your property and assets, but I live in an apartment complex, and my neighbor won't let his own dad, who they both claim that they are best of friends, live with him because of how he'll get financially tangled in ONE of his debts. Now, I'm not gonna pry, it could be a multi-million dollar debt, but that's not important. His dad has been homeless for a week because he has no friends, money, or any other family. So, yea. I know that specific situation is a bit extreme, but it's like all other people would have taken him in. The whole wealth redistribution is a pretty good idea. I say start with the Waltons.
    But yea Blue, most people going against this are people who don't know jack about the idea, but hate our current president. But I for one think you are bat-shit insane. And that's what we need out of you.

    Z-Rune

    ReplyDelete
  2. This is why I wish I lived in a Socialist nation. Wealth distribution is pretty much how those countries operate (usually) and most socialist countries have lower crime, poverty, and disease rates.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @ Drake

    Really? You want to live in a modern socialist state? True, what you say about the lower poverty crime and disease rates, but still, state-run economies are very difficult to run efficiently, and if things go pear-shaped, they don't respond well to change; Gorbbo's tinkering with the Soviet economy caused the whole thing to turn belly up and was part of the reason why the USSR collapsed.

    Also, ignoring historical context, modern socialist contries are not exactly comfortable places to live. Granted, I've lived only in China, and haven't been any other socialist countries, but you just can't relax there. Too much propaganda, and the internet censorship is really creepy and annoying (even this blog is banned), and makes you feel as though your're being watched. I dunno, maybe somewhere tropical like Cuba, or Vietnam would be better. We won't mention N. Korea...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, China isn't really a socialist nation, though Hong Kong does have a sort of socialist capitalist thing going on. And North Korea's a dictatorship. What I had in mind was a capitalist socialist nation, where the government deals with health care, housing, and stuff like that, but people make money and can (with the government's approval) open up their businesses.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Socialism doesn't necessarily mean Marxism.

    @Drake: While there's been a recent backlash against the left in Europe, it's still far more leftwing than the US as a whole. Many countries there, such as Sweden, have extensive welfare support programs.

    ReplyDelete